Us as
human beings have been shown to be the most complex living creatures, known at
the time. From our motives, to beliefs, to how two people could live similar
lives and have completely different outlooks and behaviors. But we are all
human, we are all people, but that isn’t technically true. We are all comprised
of human DNA so yes, we are humans, but being a person is more complicated than
just being able to think, walk, talk, and do taxes. The philosophical definition
of a person is a creature that is apart of our moral community, something or someone
that we give moral consideration to. With that definition in place, there is the
issue of the use of something. Does that mean that an animal or object can be
considered a person? Or can a human be considered not a person?
The
answer to both of those questions is yes and no. The reason behind that is
because we don’t collectively agree on every single thing that is and isn’t
worthy of moral consideration. Some examples would be abortion, animal rights, and
even artificial intelligence; these are all issues that are discussed today
because some view those involved with each topic as either a person or not.
Many people believe that as developing fetus is not a person, while others do. Even
villains on television and in video games show this, we root for the hero
because we give them more moral consideration that the villain and in doing
that we make them less of a person. Due to this non-unanimous belief, we can’t
fully claim that what makes a person is humanity.
There are other forms of criteria that
have been proposed and discussed, such as cognitive and social criteria.
Cognitive criteria require consciousness, reasoning, self-motivated activity,
capacity to communicate and self-awareness, while social criteria entails that
you are a person if someone cares about you or when society says you are a
person. Both criteria seem to make sense, until you look deeper into the
meaning to them. When looking into cognitive criteria that would mean that
unborn fetuses, children under the age of 18 months, and those you cannot communicate
due to disability or other reasons are not people. This also allows the
inclusion of non-humans as people, an example being an A.I. if able to be
programmed to meet each criterion it would be technically a human.
With the Social criteria that would
mean that if a well-functioning adult just so happened to have no one to care
about them, they are not considered a person. Whether they show morality like society
deems it should be, would mean nothing if society says they are not a person. But
when referring to earlier how some deem something to be a person, when others
don’t, is there a middle ground or is it all or nothing.
There is a new theory that is being
discussed, and it is the gradient theory. This is theory claims that living things
can gain or lose personhood, depending on situations. According to this theory,
a puppy would hold less personhood to a human; they are living and cared about,
but when in moral consideration most people are going to consider the human
more than the puppy. When referring only to human a child holds less personhood
to an adult as their personhood is still developing. But although this does
sound like it only grows with age, that is not the case. A murderous 54-year-old
has far less personhood than an innocent 25-year-old. This theory claims that
people develop or relinquish their personhood by their actions and reactions.
If they conform more to the moral community’s actions and reactions they will
hold more personhood, than someone who doesn’t. Due to this gradient theory,
the lines deciding what is and isn’t a person are more blurred and it is up to us
as individuals to decide what we deem as a person through our own moral
consideration.
Discussion questions
What are your own personal criteria
for personhood?
Do you agree with one of the three
theories mentioned above? If so why?
Do you think that personhood is
something that can or cannot be stripped?
Sources
Posts I commented on
Very interesting. If we think of personhood as a status-marker indicating one's inclusion in the human community, and not a strictly biological condition, questions about the "personhood" of non-human animals and smart machines becomes relevant and necessary. It's very clear that one can renounce one's humanity and distance oneself from the human community by dint of anti-social behavior. By the same token, why shouldn't non-humans draw closer to that community via pro-sociality? This is sure to be a topic of increasing importance in the future.
ReplyDelete